Bush says Iraq inspectors were not let in...?

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

George Bush, July 14, 2003

Well, I think the Iraq Survey Group must do its work. Again, I appreciate David Kay's contribution. I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.

George Bush, January 27, 2004

So let me get this right. The president of the United States,
leader of the Free World, cannot accurately describe the
events that led him to the most important action of his career?
What happened to Hans Blix, UNMOVIC and the whole debate
over the UN inspectors who were, contrary to his statement,
given access to Iraq?

How many passes will we give this guy?

Robear

Judging solely by these forums? Billions. From deficit spending (which ""isn''t the most important issue of this election"") through the horrid immigrant ""amnesty"" to the nightmare that is the Iraq situation, I still think he''s going to get re-elected. I sure don''t see Kerry beating his way through... I''m not even sure I could vote for him.

Then again, who can honestly say they know the whole story on the run-up, from either side? Doubtful. In my opinion, there were no innocents in the run-up, between our administration with it''s seeming hard-on for going after Saddam regardless and Saddam''s administration trying to get away with as much as they could. Who knows all the intricacies? You can be sure the media doesn''t, but that doesn''t stop them from guessing ;).

I wish I''d written this. I think it sums up my thoughts nicely.

By now you''ve no doubt heard that David Kay, America''s top WMD bloodhound, has returned from Iraq to declare that Iraq had no significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction immediately prior to the war.

Kay may still turn out to be mistaken; some WMDs or WMD components may have been smuggled out to Lebanon or Syria as some, including Kay, believe. We may find a container buried in the sand somewhere. But even the White House has switched from saying we ""will"" find WMDs in Iraq to saying ""we might.""

In other words, if we go by the best information available right now, it appears that George W. Bush was substantively wrong when he told the country that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that Saddam was well on his way to developing a nuclear weapon.

This is a hugely important fact with grave consequences for the United States and the world. Unfortunately, very few of our political leaders seem willing or able to deal with it in a straightforward manner.

The Democrats deeply deranged by anti-Bush fever insist on making the most damning - and implausible - charge possible: that Bush willfully lied to the American people about Iraq.

As I''ve tried to demonstrate in this space before, the idea that the president lied to the American people hinges on - at least - one almost impossible fact: that George W. Bush knew for a certainty that the intelligence agencies of America, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, as well as the United Nations and countless independent experts were all wrong.

Virtually all of the anti-Bush conspiracy theories - most of which contradict each other - depend on the ""Bush lied"" thesis. But Bush''s critics won''t let go of this idea, disqualifying themselves from the deadly serious task of dealing with what went wrong.

""Clearly, the intelligence that we went to war on was inaccurate, wrong,"" David Kay told Tom Brokaw in an interview. ""We need to understand why that was. I think if anyone was abused by the intelligence it was the president of the United States rather than the other way around.""

For one reason or another - politics and pride no doubt chief among them - the administration refuses to lend credence to this alternative explanation of events. Just this week, while meeting with the president of Poland, George Bush responded to Kay''s comments by saying he still has ""great confidence"" in the intelligence community.

That''s awfully compassionate of him, but if what Kay says is true then Bush most emphatically should not have great confidence in the CIA and other intelligence agencies that seem to get things continually wrong.

Remember in 1991 the agencies were stunned to discover how advanced Iraq''s nuclear program was. Just in the last year, they were shocked by how advanced Iran and Libya''s nuclear and/or WMD programs are. This isn''t the sort of stuff we can afford to be getting wrong these days. People need to be fired.

Now I can sympathize with the White House and Congressional Republicans. The prospect of an investigation into why the intelligence was so wrong would no doubt be a carnival of political grandstanding in an election year. Why invite that kind of chaos when you don''t have to? Answer: Because it''s the right thing for America. And just because a bunch of self-serving presidential wannabes are for it, doesn''t mean you have to be against it.

Meanwhile, the president''s most shrill critics should keep in mind that if they don''t make a constructive effort to get our intelligence agencies in order the two most likely consequences will be 1) a horrendous WMD attack on the United States and/or 2) another Iraq-style war.

The potential for scenario No. 1 is obvious. If we don''t have the ability to reliably spot threats on the horizon, those threats will sail right over the horizon - and into our laps. The possibility for another war should be clear as well. If we''re not sure about the threat from an Iran or North Korea, many Americans would rather err on the side thwarting it on their turf than absorbing it on ours.

Indeed, those are just some of the points Bush should be making in his defense. In the post-9/11 world, when the Iraq sanctions regime was falling apart, President Bush had two basic options: put his faith and trust in his own and his allies'' intelligence agencies or in the promises of a truly warmongering madman who''d twice before pursued nuclear weapons and used other WMDs on his own people. Maybe Karl Rove doesn''t think so, but I think that Bush made the winning, and right, choice.

Saddam wasn''t letting inspectors have ""unfettered"" access until his very last months in power - after 12 years of ""not letting them in"" in one way or another. And even in those last few months, his officers were removing equipment from sites in anticipation of inspections - and we have the intercepts to prove it, although we still don''t know what they were hiding. So the idea that the inspectors had full access is incorrect.

I wouldn''t have phrased it the way Bush did, but remember he has to dumb down concepts for an audience that doesn''t know the definitions of simple words like ""lie"" or ""relationship"", or sometimes even ""is""...

I wouldn''t have phrased it the way Bush did, but remember he has to dumb down concepts for an audience that doesn''t know the definitions of simple words like ""lie"" or ""relationship"", or sometimes even ""is""...

Sorry, but it just cracks me up to hear you saying things like this and using the word ""eloquent"" to describe a man who comes up with stuff like:

""Hydrogen power will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas admissions.""

and

""I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport.""

Firm in his beliefs? Check. Seems to have an idea of where he wants to go and what he wants to do? Check. Eloquent? Not on your life.

Firm in his beliefs? Check. Seems to have an idea of where he wants to go and what he wants to do? Check. Eloquent? Not on your life.

Why? Because he magles a word here and there? I''ll bet you anything you like that if I made you read Bush''s speeches and hold weekly press conferences where you were drilled by hostile reporters looking to make a name by tripping you up, you would do worse...as would most people.

People think plain spoken is the opposite of eloquent. This is untrue.

There is of course a third possiblity. Instead of being fed flawed intelligence or lying, Bush and the men around him could have believed it to be true because thay wanted to believe it. Which is a far more frightening proposition.

There is of course a third possiblity. Instead of being fed flawed intelligence or lying, Bush and the men around him could have believed it to be true because thay wanted to believe it.

Is that why Hans Blix believed it?

But the wouldn''t the reason for this ""inaccurate"" intelligence be directly attributed to Carter who curtailed the CIA and many others from the way they used to operate.

I''m not trying to defend Bush but after 9/11 a lot of the rules that Carter laid on were repealed and as such you might have had a hyper awarness of intel, almost looking too closely.

Lets assume for a moment that everything regarding Iraqi WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda were completely false and intentionally manufactured by the Bush Administration as an excuse to go to war.

The end result of this war was that the UN-defying dictatorship ruling that country was knocked out of power and that the people of Iraq currently have a government which is transitioning to a democracy.

Does this end justify the means, if this end absolutely could not be achieved by peaceful means within the lifetimes of Saddam and his sons?

Do the lives and rights of Iraqis take a backseat to politics?

It sure sounds like that way to me.

Of course, then you have John Kerry:

""We were told by the administration ''they [the Iraqis] have a 45-minute capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction.'' They didn''t.

So let me get this right. A candidate for president of the United States, leader of the Free World, cannot accurately describe the events that led him to vote on one of the most important issues of his campaign?

How many passes will we give this guy?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Of course, then you have John Kerry:

""We were told by the administration ''they [the Iraqis] have a 45-minute capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction.'' They didn''t.

So let me get this right. A candidate for president of the United States, leader of the Free World, cannot accurately describe the events that led him to vote on one of the most important issues of his campaign?

How many passes will we give this guy? ;)

Not following this one.

Not following this one.

Apparently neither did Kerry. The administration never made the claim that the Iraqis had a 45-minute capacity to deploy WMDs...

"ralcydan" wrote:
Not following this one.

Apparently neither did Kerry. The administration never made the claim that the Iraqis had a 45-minute capacity to deploy WMDs...

Odd, he said in a speech in the Rose Garden that they could.

And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the orders were given.

Again, he was quoting from Intelligence sources. And those weren''t even from US intelligence.

Odd, he said in a speech in the Rose Garden that they could.

The claim wasn''t made by the administration, it was by the British government - as Bush states explicitly in the speech you link. The BBC and the New York Times repeated this assertion, as well. Would you consider it accurate if Kerry was calling them liars?

Again, he was quoting from Intelligence sources. And those weren''t even from US intelligence.

When is he not quoting from intelligence sources?! He could say ""according to my secret, invisible friend Chomqua..."" and it would still be emanating from his mouth. Splitting hairs is fine and dandy, but when he states it in the middle of a speech as part of the impetus to go crush someone, what matter that it''s ""according to the British?""

You guys have plenty of good, credible arguments. There''s no need to resort to splitting exceedingly fine hairs to try to prove points.

EDIT: My point is this: what exactly did Kerry say, according to ral... ""We were told by the administration ''they [the Iraqis] have a 45-minute capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction.''"" Does Bush stating this during a speech encompass this. Yes. They prefaced it with ""according to the British"", but would it make any difference whether it was ""according to the CIA""? If so, why?

when he states it in the middle of a speech as part of the impetus to go crush someone, what matter that it''s ""according to the British?""

Well first of all, I was making a joke - Kerry wants to attack the president for a claim that is rightly attributed to the British government, which is disingenuous.

It all comes down to why people are pointing the fingers they point. Much has been made of Bush''s statements about Saddam possibly having thousands of liters of anthrax and tons of chemical agents - but those who throw these statements out in derision always conveniently omit that these figures came from the UN.

And then these same critics complain that the US doesn''t go to the UN for approval and participation... Truly an upside-down world.

Kerry wants to attack the president for a claim that is rightly attributed to the British government, which is disingenuous.

Well...

"ralcydan" wrote:

Of course, then you have John Kerry:

""We were told by the administration ''they [the Iraqis] have a 45-minute capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction.'' They didn''t.

So let me get this right. A candidate for president of the United States, leader of the Free World, cannot accurately describe the events that led him to vote on one of the most important issues of his campaign?

How many passes will we give this guy? ;)

To me, this -- a deliberate mocking of Robear''s post -- is disingenuous.

"ralcydan" wrote:

It all comes down to why people are pointing the fingers they point. Much has been made of Bush''s statements about Saddam possibly having thousands of liters of anthrax and tons of chemical agents - but those who throw these statements out in derision always conveniently omit that these figures came from the UN.

And then these same critics complain that the US doesn''t go to the UN for approval and participation... Truly an upside-down world.

Yeah, who knows what to believe? I don''t know who to believe. I have a hard time believing this President. I have a hard time trusting him. I have a hard time wondering who the special interests are behind all these candidates that are influencing what comes out of their mouths... does Bush honestly care that much about performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports? Enough for it to be in the State of the Union address -- with an oh-so-skillfully-produced insert shot of an NFL quarterback? Let''s pan to a quick, melodramatic shot of some astronaut''s wife with a tear glistening in her eye as we discuss the future space programs (not that this happened, but it''s on the same level of ""production"" in my eyes).

I''m not a fan of any of them, as I''ve said before. If there was a candidate out there that was trustworthy, not in the thrall of special interests, not interested in telling me what I can and can''t do in my home, not wanting to spend my tax money on idiot programs, and overall generally worthy of my vote, I wish I could meet him :(.

If Bush had known about the 9/11 plot beforehand he would have done something to prevent it and if he knew the intelligence regarding Iraq weapons was flawed he would have sold the war a different way. That baby was gonna happen anyway.

I know George Tenet is a great guy to have a beer with, but he''s dropped the ball twice on his watch and he really has to go.

The Democrats should go ahead and try to make some policital currency out of this situation. After all it is an election year and they don''t have anything meaningful to add to the table. But one thing is certain, our intellegence network needs a serious shakeup. If they were this wrong with 9/11 and Iraq, are we really safe?

To me, this -- a deliberate mocking of Robear''s post -- is disingenuous.

I''ll have you know that my mocking is always absolutely sincere.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...

Interestingly, Bush''s only mention of mention of the inspectors
in his speech announcing why we were about to go to war
was to note that they had been bugged, threatened and
deceived. There is no mention of what he has clearly stated
was the cause - the failure of Iraq to admit inspectors.
He brushed past them quickly, moving on to what the
intelligence services know about Hussein''s WMD''s. (Which
they learned from inspectors who got in, primarily.)

How can even lack of full access be the cause, if it was not
even blamed at the time? His speech is based almost
entirely on Iraq''s possession of WMD''s, his defiance of the
UN in regard to WMD''s, and the possibility that he''ll use the
WMD''s he has. Oh, and there''s a bit about how much Iraq''s
people are suffering. At least we know that was true.

As the war began, Bush summed it all up in one paragraph:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...

Why would he now explain the war with something that did not
even appear in his speech? Certainly he was not flustered in
his statement - he twice repeats his canned response pretty well, and then decides the second time to elaborate. So he
had no problem with remembering the script. All he had to do was
remind us that he started the war to protect the world from
Iraqi WMD''s. That''s simple enough not to forget...unless, of
course, there''s something else foremost in his mind.

I think this is what he really believes. However, my opinion
doesn''t really matter. The silence of the media on this is what
speaks most loudly, and it will certainly be noted when the
revol...uh, when the history books are written.

Robear

I''ll have you know that my mocking is always absolutely sincere.

It''s what makes your posts so much fun.

Robear

Like I said, Saddam wasn''t cooperating. The sentiment of Bush''s statement was absolutely accurate, just like the statements that Saddam supported terrorism and sought WMDs.

When constantly correcting himself, Howard Dean says that he gets his words wrong but his intent is clear. I''m sure an even-minded soul like yourself will give Bush as many passes as you would someone like Howard Dean...

So what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Do dems vote on a front runner who then gets slammed by republicans or do dems know who to vote for by waiting to see who the republicans slam hardest?

Do dems vote on a front runner who then gets slammed by republicans or do dems know who to vote for by waiting to see who the republicans slam hardest?

I think Republicans attack the front-runners. You''ll note that nobody cares about Dennis Kucinich, whose ideology is the biggest disaster of all of the nominees...

And I actually think Democrats have been listening to Republican advice. Republican slams against Howard Dean at least in part contributed to Democratic voter awareness of Dean''s negative traits. Had we kept our stupid mouths shut, Dean would be doing much better than he is.

[quote]
When constantly correcting himself, Howard Dean says that he gets his words wrong but his intent is clear. I''m sure an even-minded soul like yourself will give Bush as many passes as you would someone like Howard Dean...[\\quote]

Are you arguing for lowering the bar to fit the current President?
How does that fit with the idea of personal responsibility for one''s
actions and words?

Dean is still feeling his way through the pitfalls of his first national
campaign. And anyway, all politicians mis-state. But Mr. Bush has to
be held to a higher standard, just as we did with Clinton. It''s okay for
a Presidential candidate to lie about, say, drunken-driving convictions,
or not to know much about foreign countries. We''ve established that
level of ignorance already, with the last election. But we''ve also
demonstrated an intolerance for any tiny, niggling failure in the
treatment of Clinton as President. I''m merely asking that the same
standard of quality be applied to Bush, and if not, why not? If he
can''t explain the most important action of his presidency without
resorting to ""what I meant was"", what does that say about his
capabilities?

At some point, the treatment of their opponents by the NeoCons will
come back to haunt them. Better now, in the press, than 5 years
from now in the office of the independent investigator. Could this
create a vicious cycle that flavors American politics to come?
Perhaps. But we have Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist and Karl
Rove to blame for the latest change in tone over the last ten years.
Not to mention Roger Ailes.

And no one liked my ""when the revolution comes"" joke. Sigh. Always
so serious.

Robear

Got it. So in other words Dean gets a pass and Bush doesn''t because you say so. Fair enough.

we''ve also demonstrated an intolerance for any tiny, niggling failure in the treatment of Clinton as President.

Who''s this ""we""? I have seen no one from the left or the media claim Clinton misled the American people when he attacked Iraq based on the same intel Bush used for the Iraq War. That isn''t the same standard - that''s a double-standard...

But we have Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist and Karl
Rove to blame for the latest change in tone over the last ten years. Not to mention Roger Ailes.

What a joke. So the fact that Clinton sexually harrassed people and actually commited perjury is irrelevant to the rhetoric used against him? And was it Ralph Reed or Roger Ailes who forced Democrats running for president to call Bush ""a gang leader"", ""a miserable failure"" and accuse him of murder?

How does that fit with the idea of personal responsibility for one''s actions and words?

The leftreallydoesn''t get this idea when you start blaming words coming out of the mouths of grown men on republican bogeymen...

Anyone else think that we will suddenly find a hidden cache of WMD right around July-August?

"Minase" wrote:

Anyone else think that we will suddenly find a hidden cache of WMD right around July-August?

No, but that''ll be the thing dogging the Bush Administration through November 11 of this year: any significant progress on the ""War on Terror"" front or in terms of Iraq that are announced by the White House -- regardless of how legitimate it is -- will be viewed by some as election-year trickery.

If we kill or catch Osama Bin Laden this year, I guarantee that some tinfoil hat-wearing nutjob in the Democratic party will scream that it was ""planned all along.""

what do you mean it wasn''t all planned all along? Sheesh we can''t even have good conspiracies these days.